Category Archives: Art

The Girls-1968

The Girls-1968

Director Mai Zetterling

Starring Bibi Andersson, Harriet Andersson

Scott’s Review #404

70052262

Reviewed May 11, 2016

Grade: B+

The Girls is a 1968 Swedish film that is political, surreal, dreamlike, and feminist. These may seem like too many adjectives to describe a movie, but they all happen to be warranted and work to categorize it, which is tough- it is a complex film.

The film left me deep in thought about what I had just viewed- that is a positive for me.

Directed by Mai Zetterling, a woman, the film is told from a female perspective and is quite tricky to follow. However, the message portrayed is a compelling thought of a woman repressed, whether in reality or fantasy, by men.

In my attempt to describe The Girls accurately, it appears to feature a boys-versus-girls element throughout, told by the girls. The plot centers around three women: Liz (Bibi Andersson), Marianne (Harriet Andersson), and Gunilla (Gunnel Lindblom).

The women are hired to star in a touring production of Lysistrata, and each faces conflict and concern over leaving their respective families, but for differing reasons.

Liz’s husband, who is having an affair, cannot get rid of her soon enough. Marianne has recently dumped her married boyfriend. Gunilla has four children and suffers from guilt.  All of the women are very friendly with each other.

All three principal actresses are familiar to eagle-eyed Ingmar Bergman fans as each of them has appeared in numerous films of his-in very different types of roles.

Wild Strawberries and The Seventh Seal (both 1957) feature these actresses.

The women go on tour and have various surreal experiences based on the play in which they are stars. The film, made in black and white, has very overexposed cinematography. The blacks and the whites look very sharp, and this is no doubt done deliberately.

On the surface, it would appear that the women hate men and yearn to be free of them. Is that the point of the film? It seems to go in other directions as well. Do they hate their lives and feel confined with men and free without them, when they are touring their play?

How do they feel about their children? Do they miss them on tour, love them, resent them, or perhaps a bit of each? They yearn to be free of restraint.

We are treated to numerous scenes that seem to be a dreamlike state or a fantasy of one of the women. One runs through the forest and comes upon a grizzled, dirty child on the ground. Is it hers? She then sees her husband sitting in a living room chair in the middle of the forest.

The symbolism resonating through The Girls is countless. We also see the women fantasize about a handsome, young man. Are they tired of the doldrums- looks and otherwise- that their husbands have caused them?

Many political protests occur throughout the film. In one, the women march in unison- Nazi-style and chant. In another, the women lead what appears to be a charge of women-suffragette style, until the women start attacking each other and punching and kicking each other in the streets.

These scenes and countless others are tough to analyze, but perhaps this is the point. I decided to escape into the film and not try to figure out what everything meant.

Fantastic to see the exterior scenes shot in Stockholm, Sweden, which reminds us what a liberal, democratic city it is. Yet the women are repressed. Made in 1968, during the sexual revolution, the film’s timing is perfect.

The Girls (1968) left me pondering the story and the viewpoint, and I will need further viewings for the film to sink in more successfully and for me to get it, if I ever do, but I enjoyed it nonetheless.

The film is the kind of film that requires further viewing to understand. I look forward to watching this film again, which is high praise.

Irreversible-2002

Irreversible-2002

Director Gaspar Noe

Starring Monica Bellucci, Vincent Cassel

Top 10 Most Disturbing Films #4

Scott’s Review #375

60026141

Reviewed February 7, 2016

Grade: C+

As I ponder my review of Irreversible,  a 2002 French thriller and “art film”, I am attempting (as I always do) to look at the film critically, from a story and a technical standpoint, as well as a myriad of other aspects that make up a film.

This is admittedly a toughie.

On the surface, I despised the film wholeheartedly (more on that later), but from a critical standpoint, I found characteristics to admire and give credit to. One thing is for certain- I never want to see this film again.

The story is told in a non-linear style, begins after the story, and works backward, which I credit the film for, giving it a unique storytelling experience, cleverly done.

Two Parisian friends, Marcus and Pierre, go on a rampage after Marcus’s girlfriend is brutally raped and beaten. In panic mode, they learn the name of the attacker (Le Tenia) and go to a gay BDSM club aptly named “The Rectum”, a place the attacker requests, where they fervently search for him all the while beating club-goers and cause havoc.

Since the story is told in reverse, the audience is initially in a state of confusion at the events transpiring, and the jagged, shaky camera work, a very creative technique, only adds to the chaos. We only know that two maniacs are running rampant, destroying everything in their path.

Slowly, we realize what their motivation is as we work backward.

We are introduced to Alex, a beautiful young woman- in the early stages of pregnancy, who is Marcus’s steady, but used to date, Pierre. They are all very good friends. We see the romance between Marcus and Alex, and, working even further backward, we see Alex sitting alone in a park, reading a novel, and enjoying a bright, pleasant day in the park.

This peaceful closing scene contrasts drastically with the rest of the dark film. The film then becomes a flashing, frenetic, black-and-white experience, which I do not understand.

The film is quite bizarre and intensely brutal. The rape of Alex in a dark, gloomy underpass is one of the most intense and disturbing scenes I have ever witnessed in the film, and at one point I needed to leave the room briefly.

The scene is ten minutes in length and Alex is anally raped and then beaten into a comatose state. It is a sickening scene and we witness her pain, misery, and humiliation.

When Pierre and Marcus avenge her rape on who they think is Le Tenia, the scene is also extremely brutal. After (supposed) Le Tenia is captured by them, he attempts to rape Marcus, and Pierre grabs a fire extinguisher and bashes the victim to death as the face is repeatedly destroyed in full detail. It is a tough scene to watch.

I question the motivations of the director wholeheartedly and wonder if he intended to story-tell, or simply make as gruesome and shocking a film as possible.

I have read that when the film was shown at the Cannes Film Festival, many people walked out of the auditorium in disgust- I can see why.

Irreversible is severely homophobic, with repeated gay slurs being used throughout the gay club scenes, and is also anti- Asian as evidenced by Pierre’s and Marcus’s racial slurs directed at a taxi driver.

The motivations of the character of Le Tenia make no sense to me as it is revealed he is a gay man. Why a gay man would brutally rape a female is unclear to me. This, combined with the extreme brutality, anti-gay, anti-minority, and anti-women, renders the film rather pointless from a story perspective.

My assumption after processing the film is that the director wants us to sympathize with nobody in the film, except Alex. Pierre, Marcus, and Le Tenia are all hateful characters.

It is interesting how, at first, since the beginning is the end, the motivations of the characters are unclear and confused.

My admiration of Irreversible (2002) comes solely from the unique camera work, the clever pacing of the film in the form of backward chapters, and the frenetic style of the opening work, however, the homophobia, racism, and brutality left me cold and I could not shake the feeling that this film is shocking for the sake of being shocking, and one that I ultimately cannot applaud.

A Serbian Film-2010

A Serbian Film-2010

Director Srdan Spasojevic

Starring Sergej Trifunovic

Top 10 Most Disturbing Films #6

Scott’s Review #282

Serbian-film-poster-325x460

Reviewed October 13, 2015

Grade: B

A Serbian Film is a 2010 Serbian horror film that attempts, and succeeds, in breaking down every possible taboo barrier, albeit in a stylish, admirable, artistic way.

The film is not for the faint of heart and even die-hard, gross-out horror fans might find it too shocking to view.

It is not so much the gore that is challenging- horror aficionados have seen this before, but rather the blatant display of the subject matter at hand, which delves full speed ahead into pornography, including rape (both sexes), necrophilia (sex with corpses), and child sexual abuse, that is both tough and sickening to watch.

Priding myself in being able to take anything that is thrown my way in the world of film, I admired A Serbian Film’s bravery in going places rarely gone before in film.

I felt, however, that the story was not too compelling or particularly well written and that the primary goal was to shock the audience rather than tackle a great story.

Intriguing to note is A Serbian film has been banned in several countries, for the obvious controversial content.

Milos is a semi-retired porn star, now happily married to the beautiful Marija and living a peaceful existence. While they struggle financially, they share an adequate life while raising their six-year-old son Petar.

One day Milos runs into a fellow porn star, Lejla, who suggests he contact a powerful porn producer and return to the business, citing an enormous windfall to be had since the producer is making more “artistic” films these days.

Milos cannot resist the potential money and meets with the mysterious man named Vukmir. One thing leads to another and he is once again lured back into the porn industry. What he is not told is the premise or details of the film he is to appear in, only to show up at the designated filming location.

Predictably this leads to disaster and the main plot of the film emerges. Milos is drugged to become a “stud”, bedding and beating almost anything that breathes…..or doesn’t breathe if you catch my drift.

Brazen is a polite way of describing this film. It is perverse and goes way out there. Milos, while drugged, begins to do crazy stuff, not realizing what he is doing, and spirals further out of control as the drugs increase.

The producer, in the film’s brief attempt at a social slant, cites child pornography as in popular demand as online viewers clamor for this new form of “art”.

Two scenes stand out as gruesome to view. One involves a pregnant porn star giving birth- she does so and her counterpart proceeds to rape the screaming baby- the new mother grins in sinister pleasure.

In another, Milos rapes his son, Petar, while Milos’s brother, rapes Milos’s wife. Of course, being heavily under the influence, Milos does not realize what he is doing, but the film succeeds in shocking and disgusting the audience.

Both of these horrific scenes have nothing to do with the story and are included to shock elicit a reaction from the viewer.

My criticism of the film is that the grotesque scenes have little to do with the story and are arguably not needed to further the plot.

Shocking for the sake of being shocking, the film reminds me in a way of Salo, a brutal art film from 1975, which focuses not on horror, but on the horrific time of Nazi-ism.

Salo is a masterpiece because it contains a powerful, thought-provoking story.

A Serbian Film (2010) is a brave film, but ultimately the story achieves nothing more than being a disturbing film that I never need to see again.

The Passenger-1975

The Passenger-1975

Director Michelangelo Antonioni

Starring Jack Nicholson, Maria Schneider

Scott’s Review #259

70042799

Reviewed July 19, 2015

Grade: A

A true art film in every sense of the word, The Passenger (1975) is a thinking man’s film, not for those content to munch on popcorn and escape the day’s stressors, but rather, custom-made for a film fan willing to ponder the meaning of the film, revel in the slow pace, and appreciate the film as an art form.

The Passenger is tough to “get” throughout most of its over two-hour running time, but its complexities are also its most beautiful characteristics. To say that the film will leave the viewer with questions is quite an understatement, but is pleasing to analyze and come up with conclusions of meaning.

Michelangelo Antonioni directed this film and is well-known for directing Blowup and Zabriskie Point, neither of which I have seen as of this writing.

Jack Nicholson stars as a journalist named David Locke, who is on location in Africa (specifically the Sahara desert in Chad). David’s assignment is to produce a documentary film. While there he mysteriously assumes the identity of a businessman named Robertson, who he finds dead in his hotel room.

This task is easy because David and Robertson look very much alike. As events unfold, it becomes clear that Robertson is involved in arms dealings and smuggling matters related to the ongoing civil unrest within the country.

Flashbacks reveal David’s former life, including his friendship with the businessman, and his relationship with his wife, Rachel, and these scenes are mixed in with the current action until they become more linear with each other.

The film is complex, to say the least. The initial scene when David spontaneously decides to switch identities is excellent. We wonder, what are David’s motivations and what is the appeal of him taking over another man’s life? Who is the man? Why is David so unhappy in his own life?

The film succeeds immeasurably as the plot is not simply told to the audience like so many other mainstream films. Events seem genuine and not forced for plot purposes.

In the current time, whereabouts in London, Rachel sadly mourns the assumed “death” of her husband David, though we learn that Rachel has secrets of her own she has been hiding and suffers from tremendous guilt.

To further complicate matters for everyone, she is attempting to find the businessman, since she has learned that he was the last person to see her husband alive. Also mixed into the story is a mysterious young woman whom David meets when the story moves to Barcelona, Spain.

What makes The Passenger so compelling to me is its intricacies- story as well as camera styles. The seven-minute-long shot towards the end is brilliant filmmaking and the climax is quietly intense.

The camera’s focus is on a hotel room, switches to the parking lot, and returns to the hotel room. I was transfixed by the character of David enormously, struggling to empathize with him, while all the while enjoying an intelligent character study mixed in with a story of political intrigue.

I do not confess to understanding everything about The Passenger and will surely need more viewings to make more sense of it all, but the film fascinates me.

In a time of mediocre films, how refreshing to stumble upon a forgotten relic from 1975 and have a renewed appreciation for film as an art form.

Teorema-1968

Teorema-1968

Director Pier Paolo Pasolini

Starring Terence Stamp, Silvana Mangano

Scott’s Review #234

70039263

Reviewed April 10, 2015

Grade: A-

Teorema is a 1968 Italian art film directed by Pier Paolo Pasolini, who later went on to direct the dark and disturbing 1975 masterpiece, Salò- 120 Days of Sodom.

If one is looking for a concise, mainstream plot with a fixed, to-the-point beginning and ending, one will be disappointed. Rather, Teorema is an exhibition in artistic style and interpretation, and it succeeds in mesmerizing this viewer with thought and contemplation.

A mysterious stranger, known as “the visitor”, suddenly arrives to stay with an affluent Italian family in their sprawling estate. The family consists of a father, mother, son, daughter, and maid, all of whom experience loneliness, boredom, fear, rage, or repression.

The handsome stranger successfully beds all the family members, and just as suddenly as he arrives, he disappears from the household, leaving the family members with different thoughts, feelings, and actions upon his departure.

The film is highly interpretive, and every character can be analyzed.

The stranger seduces all the characters, and the family’s wealth is examined. Is Teorema (which translates to the theorem in Italian) a commentary on the bourgeois society? The father, Paolo, owns a factory and appears to be in turmoil- is he a repressed homosexual?

The father’s story concludes with him turning his factory over to the workers, stripping naked, and roaring with anger and frustration.

Is the mother simply a wealthy, bored housewife or much more than that? This character might have been explored more thoroughly.

The maid, devoutly religious, becomes suicidal after her tryst with the stranger. The others confide in the stranger about how they feel about themselves, and at times, the film feels like a therapy session as each character delves deeper into their personal feelings.

Only the maid is a bit different from the others, but could this be because she is working-class, while the others are affluent?

The daughter, Odessa, approximately sixteen years old, becomes depressed after her liaison. The frightened, weak son appears to have a crisis and is consoled by the stranger in a loving, tender fashion.

Interestingly, the film at the time was resoundingly denounced by the Vatican, which took offense at the controversial tone of the film and its focus on “obscenity”.

Could this be because of some people’s interpretation of “the visitor” as being a Christ-like figure? One must argue for the distinction between “obscenity” and “art” after viewing this groundbreaking, visionary film. I found Teorema to be a thought-provoking film and did not feel the movie was going for shock value.

The film is lightweight in this regard compared to the hauntingly brutal Salo (1975), which followed years later.

Teorema (1968) delves into the psychological abyss and portrays an Italian family as more than wealthy- they are people with emotions, fears, desires, and complexities.

Not for mainstream audiences, but meant for lovers of interpretive film, it can be debated and discussed for ages to come.

Birdman-2014

Birdman-2014

Director Alejandro G. Iñárritu

Starring Michael Keaton, Edward Norton, Emma Stone

Scott’s Review #190

80000643

Reviewed November 6, 2014

Grade: A

Birdman (2014) is a unique art film that, happily, has garnered major exposure and publicity because a movie like this runs the risk of receiving praise and notice only from the art-house crowd itself.

The film’s star, Michael Keaton, portrays Riggan Thomson, a former action hero superstar from the 1990s, who was made famous for the “Birdman” character he created.

Having made sequels to the film, his career has since dried up and he hopes to establish credibility and prove himself a real actor by writing, directing, and starring in his play.

The film is set in and around the Broadway theater in New York City.

As opening night approaches, he struggles to pull everything together and emit a successful production while faced with an injured terrible actor, a difficult actor, his insecurities, and a miserable theatre critic destined to ruin his big chance.

To make matters worse, his daughter Sam, played by Emma Stone is a recovering drug addict who hangs around the theatre distracting actors with her charm and good looks.

Naomi Watts and Edward Norton play Leslie and Mike, other cast members in the production. Watts is sympathetic as the emotional actress with a heart of gold who finally has her dream of performing on Broadway realized.

Norton, outstanding as Mike, is blunt yet socially awkward and can only perform truthfully on stage.

Keaton is simply a marvel as he plays a dark and vulnerable man. He hates and wishes to shed his ridiculous movie persona of yesteryear and secretly cringes when recognized by fans. He uses it with a voice inside his head when he played “Birdman” years earlier.

The uniqueness of the film is the use of what seems like one long take as the action rarely stops and is ongoing. The film belongs to Keaton, who wonderfully relays vulnerability, pain, and fear within with an outward persona of bravery and masculinity.

Throughout the film I wondered, is Riggan suicidal? What is real and what is imagined? Are certain scenes foreshadowing later events?

The film has much depth.

One marvels at how art imitates life, is Keaton portraying himself? He was the original Batman in the successful superhero franchise beginning in 1989 and his career tanked shortly after.

Birdman is a comeback film for him and he is devastatingly good.

Norton’s character Mike impressed me. He is blunt flawed, scared, and addicted to the stage.

Stone has one particularly brilliant scene as she lambasts her father and with regret, later on, tells him that the world has moved on without him and that he is irrelevant just like everyone else. It is a powerful scene.

In another, Riggan is locked outside the theater during the performance, clad only in his underwear. How on earth will he return to the stage and complete the show? The quick slights at current Hollywood superstars playing superheroes, specifically Robert Downey Jr. are deliciously naughty.

It is impossible to predict what will come next and the film is very New York theater style. Keaton’s run-in with a theater critic in a cocktail bar is the best scene in the film as the critic’s vicious critique of “You’re a celebrity, not an actor” resonates with both pain and tremendous anger for Riggan.

Riggan is a sensitive, struggling man and Keaton so wonderfully shows his vulnerability in every scene.

Oscar Nominations: 4 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-Alejandro G. Iñárritu (won), Best Actor-Michael Keaton, Best Supporting Actor-Edward Norton, Best Supporting Actress-Emma Stone, Best Original Screenplay (won), Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Cinematography (won)

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 3 wins-Best Feature (won), Best Director-Alejandro G. Inarritu, Best Male Lead-Michael Keaton (won), Best Supporting Male-Edward Norton, Best Supporting Female-Emma Stone, Best Cinematography (won)

The 400 Blows-1959

The 400 Blows-1959

Director Francois Truffaut

Starring Jean-Pierre Leaud

Scott’s Review #88

70048120

Reviewed July 2, 2014

Grade: A

The 400 Blows is a French New Wave masterpiece from 1959 that is heartbreaking yet beautiful in its storytelling.

It tells the story of Antoine, a kindhearted yet hardened teen forced to live a tough life on the streets of Paris.

It is autobiographical as director Francois Truffaut suffered a childhood similar to the boy.

Misunderstood and mistreated by his parents and schoolteachers, Antoine must survive and thrive as a teenage runaway who cannot get a break in life.

Shot in Paris and featuring gorgeous shots of the city, the black-and-white filming adds to the bleakness and coldness of this young boy’s life. Truffaut was the first to use the familiar still-frame close-up of angst. The scenes of Antoine running from the city along the beach are some of the most beautiful in film history.

Truffaut influenced a generation of directors with his very personal brand of storytelling.

The 400 Blows (1959) is not always a pleasant film but an important and influential work of art cinema.

Young actor Jean-Pierre Leaud gives an excellent performance.

Oscar Nominations: Best Story and Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen

The Great Beauty-2013

The Great Beauty-2013

Director Paolo Sorrentino

Starring Toni Servillo, Carlo Verdone

Scott’s Review #16

70275597

Reviewed June 17, 2014

Grade: A

The Great Beauty is an Italian film and winner of the 2013 Best Foreign Language Oscar and, in my opinion, well deserved.

The film is hardly conventional- it is thoughtful, character-driven, and quite Fellini-influenced.

It takes some time to get into- the first thirty minutes are mostly people dancing and partying wildly.

Set in present-day Rome, it tells the story of a successful sixty-five-year-old journalist who reflects on his life, past and present.

The themes of loss and loneliness are explored, and while cynical, are not a downer.

Quite the contrary, as one party after another, is thrown and the nightlife and excesses of Rome are the centerpieces.

A main aspect of The Great Beauty is that all the money and success in the world do not measure happiness something that many people forget.

The main character loses people close to him and many of his wealthy friends are bored and alone. This film is about life and its complexities.

It left me thinking long after the credits rolled and is a huge testament to its power. Rarely, a film like this comes along any longer.

I felt like I was watching a masterpiece.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Foreign Language Film (won)

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best International Film